Bottom Line:
Control of IOP was best in patients receiving tube surgery.Cyclodiode and cycloYAG treatments were similarly effective in lowering IOP.Tube surgery was associated with a greater incidence of sight threatening complications.

Methods: A consecutive group of 45 eyes that received cycloYAG were matched against two control groups of patients who had received tube surgery or cyclodiode, each control group having been derived from a database of patients.

Results: Mean pretreatment IOP improved from 41.3, 38.6, and 32.0 mmHg for the tube, cycloYAG, and cyclodiode groups, respectively, to 16.4, 22.1, and 19.3 mmHg, respectively. Treatment success was achieved in 78%, 69%, and 71% of the tube, cycloYAG, and cyclodiode groups, respectively. Visual acuity deteriorated 2 or more Snellen lines in 16%, 7%, and 9% of the patients in the tube, cycloYAG, and cyclodiode groups, respectively. Complications included retinal detachment, hypotony, and phthisis.

Conclusions: All 3 methods provided acceptable IOP lowering in the short and medium term. Control of IOP was best in patients receiving tube surgery. Cyclodiode and cycloYAG treatments were similarly effective in lowering IOP. Tube surgery was associated with a greater incidence of sight threatening complications.

Mentions:
Figures 5, 6, and 7 show the “raw data” for pretreatment VA and VA at last followup, for each treatment group. The pretreatment VA varied between 6/6 and HM in the tube group and between 6/9 and NPL in both the cycloYAG and cyclodiode group.

Mentions:
Figures 5, 6, and 7 show the “raw data” for pretreatment VA and VA at last followup, for each treatment group. The pretreatment VA varied between 6/6 and HM in the tube group and between 6/9 and NPL in both the cycloYAG and cyclodiode group.

Bottom Line:
Control of IOP was best in patients receiving tube surgery.Cyclodiode and cycloYAG treatments were similarly effective in lowering IOP.Tube surgery was associated with a greater incidence of sight threatening complications.

Methods: A consecutive group of 45 eyes that received cycloYAG were matched against two control groups of patients who had received tube surgery or cyclodiode, each control group having been derived from a database of patients.

Results: Mean pretreatment IOP improved from 41.3, 38.6, and 32.0 mmHg for the tube, cycloYAG, and cyclodiode groups, respectively, to 16.4, 22.1, and 19.3 mmHg, respectively. Treatment success was achieved in 78%, 69%, and 71% of the tube, cycloYAG, and cyclodiode groups, respectively. Visual acuity deteriorated 2 or more Snellen lines in 16%, 7%, and 9% of the patients in the tube, cycloYAG, and cyclodiode groups, respectively. Complications included retinal detachment, hypotony, and phthisis.

Conclusions: All 3 methods provided acceptable IOP lowering in the short and medium term. Control of IOP was best in patients receiving tube surgery. Cyclodiode and cycloYAG treatments were similarly effective in lowering IOP. Tube surgery was associated with a greater incidence of sight threatening complications.